Alex Basilevsky noted this article by Neal McGrath for GreenBiz.com about a meeting of Big Pharma sustainability people.
At a recent gathering of sustainability people from some of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies (or "Environment, Health and Safety" people as they tend to be called in the pharmaceutical industry), I got a glimpse of what could be the next headache for the oft-beaten up industry. This insight came not from what they talked about the most, but rather what they did not talk about enough: The question of pharmaceutical residue in the water supply.
Many of the attendees discussed the great progress their companies had made in reducing toxic chemicals, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions. But McGrath notes that it was what the attendees didn't talk much about that could be the industry's next big problem.
But when the discussion moved to the question of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in the water supply, everything seemed to go off the tracks.
First, there was spirited discussion of programs under which the pharmacies that sell prescription and over-the-counter medications would have to take them back. This reduces the likelihood of people flushing unused drugs down the toilet or tossing them into the trash, where they leech from landfill into the water table. This has been done in some European locations with mixed success: Lackluster results in some locations were blamed on poor public education.
Here in the U.S., the solutions are not so easy. Many drugs are controlled substances and it is not clear that pharmacies are legally allowed to take them back. The EPA may support the approach, but the DEA is less enthusiastic: Drugs are carefully controlled on their way out the door but there are no such controls or even procedures to handle these drugs when they come back.
Maybe law enforcement agencies could collect the drugs?
But McGrath reports that there was disagreement on the source of the pharmaceuticals.
Then the real challenge made its way into the discussion: What is the source of the trace amounts of pharmaceutical products being found in water supplies? Some conference attendees confidently stated they must coming from people tossing unused pills into the toilet; if they are right, then some kind of take-back program is a good solution, however tricky it may be to implement.
Others were not so confident or the contamination's source; they asserted with equal conviction it was coming from human excretions. Since most drugs don't completely metabolize in the body, a little or a lot (depending on the drug) is released in the patient's urine. If this is the source, take-back programs won't do anything to solve the problem.
The biggest and most looming challenge seemed to be that the people in the room did not agree on this basic question, and it turns out that the few studies done so far have also not delivered clear answers.
This is clearly a challenge: If you don't know the source, how can you devise an approach to tackle it?
And, as McGrath states, that's a scary question.
“It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it. "-- former Vice President Dan Quayle
It currently is being offered for 20% off at the publisher's WWW site. 
Well, the Empire Storm Troopers are coming home to roost, or maybe I should say that the Law of Unintended Consequences is rearing its ugly head once again.


Recent Comments